trib

Well Known Member
Looks like there are a number of O320 engines out there at very reasonable prices when compare to an O360. Could anyone give me an estimate on what the performance figures are for comparison purposes? :confused: Assume a 6A with fixed pitch prop. I might have to go for the O320 with prices being the way they are and availability of decent used mid-time engines.
 
Go to Van's web site, enter and click on RV 7/7A, click on performance and it gives a 3 engine comparison. A 320 (160 HP), 360 (180 HP), and the angle valve 360 , (200 HP).
John
 
Thankyouverymuch John.

Interesting

8 mph slower in cruise and 300 fpm less rate of climb, but an increase of 60 miles range. Makes an O320 worth considering.
 
Remember, you can get O-320 speed and range out of an O-360 by dialing back on the throttle, but there is no way to get O-360 takeoff and climb performance out of an O-320.

In other words, an O-360 is more versatile.
 
Check with Doug

Yes, the guy who runs this web site.

"Flash" started life with an O-320 and he later changed it out to an O-360. He has a very good prospective on both engines.
 
"Flash" started life with an O-320 and he later changed it out to an O-360. He has a very good prospective on both engines.


Not a good comparison. Doug also changed from fixed-pitch prop to constant-speed when he changed engines.

I certainly don't want to cast stones at anyone's choice of engines, but new builders can rest assured that RV's fly great with O-320 engines.
 
I agree

I flew the C/S o320 RV6a that Mike Seager trains it...It was the most delightful airplane....I came back wondering why you would need anymore...>Loads of performance

The IO360 in the 7a is More than enough from my massive 24 hours flying experience perspective...I might have close to 190hp with the FF sump and gas flow job etc...But if I had a 320 in the 7 I would be perfectly happy...Right up until the point someone burned past me in an IO360...:)

Not sure what the resale value is like on a 320....Might be a false economy....FWIW

Frank
 
Dave Cole said:
Remember, you can get O-320 speed and range out of an O-360 by dialing back on the throttle, but there is no way to get O-360 takeoff and climb performance out of an O-320.

In other words, an O-360 is more versatile.

Very true...however, the O-360 is about 20# heavier than the O-320, if I remember correctly. The extra weight cancels some of the horsepower gain. Now your empty weight is higher...less useful load. I believe in the KISS method. The lighter you keep it, the better it will fly. :D

Just my .02
Take care
 
I'm looking at both ends of the spectrum. IO-360 OR 390 ANGLE valve or IO-320. Either case would use CS prop.
 
From this website (http://www.aviator.cc/weights.txt) I think the weight difference of an O-320 to O-360 is about 7-8 lbs. The only real difference is the O-360 has about 0.5" more stroke. Therefore the crank is a little different (but weight should be almost the same) and the cylinders are a little longer (there's the weight difference, maybe 2 pounds per cylinder).

The fuel burn will be the same (or extremely close) at the same horsepower output because the BSFC for both engines being of identical design should be the same. As Van's lists a 320 will go a LITTLE slower and climb a LITTLE less than a 360. When the 360 is doing that it will burn more gas. An O-320 RV performs very well. A 360 will do a little bit better. Cost being the same i'd get the 360, but if you can get a 320 cheaper I would get it and not look back. For reference ask how many RV guys really run _that_ hard all or really any of the time? I know me personally with my ~165-170 horse O-320 am powered way back almost all the time to save gas. Even with my fixed pitch prop I can outclimb by magnitudes anything on my field except the couple S-2B Pitts but then again they'd outclimb O-360 RV's too. ;)

Scott
#90598 - N598SD Flying - 79 hours
 
Both great engines. This post is not scientific but may be a useful comparison between my Son's RV-4 with IO-360 angle valve and my O-320 converted to 160 HP.

On our recent trip in which we both flew the same route from Vancouver, WA to Prescott AZ to Fullerton, CA and back to Vancouver, WA. Each time we fueled his airplane (IO-360) took 1 to 3 gallons of fuel LESS than mine.

Also, he has an MT constant speed prop and I have wooden propeller. Now, for some speculations. I believe he uses less fuel for a couple of reasons. One, he climbes faster and gets to cruising altitude faster. His flies faster at high altitudes than mine. on a 2 hour to 2.5 hour flight he would beat me by 10 to 15 minutes, so he is running his engine less time.

On the whole trip he used 13.8 hours including taking his cousin up for about 45 minutes. Mine took 14.1 hours without the extra cousin trip.

Now, if we just go out a cruise around together (same altitude & speed) I'll burn a bit less fuel than he does. Bottom line, if your airplane is going to be a point A to point B plane primarily and or you live in high altitude country, I would suggest a 360 w/ constant speed prop. However, the 320 is a fine engine (especially if you get a good price). And, when you are not flying with other 360's it's a fine cross country airplane. We took off at Fullerton (Los Angeles) at 8"oo am and arrived in Vancouver WA. 6 hours later with two stops.

Even if you do fly with other 360's they just get there enough ahead of you to be out of the way at the fuel pump. Everyone still stands around to see how much fuel you took and to stretch etc. So, overall you really are not that much slower. You can buy a lot of fuel for the difference in price of engines and prop combo.

Tom
 
The big difference

is the Fuel injection on the IO360 i think.

if the FI is well balanced it will run more efficiently because you get better fuel distribution between the cylinders and avoid wasting fuel to overcool the rich cylinders in order to bring the hottest cylinder into line.

Thats ROP running.

if the FI system is well balanced it will also run LOP which saves quite a bit of fuel over the carburetted counterpart. Of course you make less power but that is partly made up by the bigger engine.

Frank
 
as an example

I can make about 137kts IAS running at 6.7GPH at 5000feet.

Cylinders running 25 to 65F LOP

Just happened to glance down and see those numbers, was not trying to get the last bit of efficiency out of it at the time, Still need to balance my FI system

Frank
 
As another point,

The 320 is generally considered to be much smoother than the O-360, and I suppose that if you want to run LOP, you could add fuel injection to the 320.

It is also much more common for the 320's to run well past TBO. This adds to the economy, though I doubt most of us will ever get to TBO before selling and building another plane.

The price difference is substantial. I ended up with a mjored engine (now on second run) with new carb, new mags, new fuel and oil pumps, lycon/ECI new pistons and cylinders for $12,500. I got a good deal on the core, and was lucky when it checked out at the machine shop.

My plan is to try and get back most of the climb with a C/S prop, and to get back some of the cruise with a James Cowl, and clean light plane.

Of course we will only know the results if I can ever get the thing to fly!
 
Fuel Mileage

My RV7 has a IO360 M1B with one Lasar Ignition. Hartzell CD Prop. My typical mission is as follows. Climb out from field level of 3450? to 10,500? or 11,500? cruise for 3 hours descend at 500 fpm. Climb out is full throttle. Rpm reduced on initial climb out to 2500 rpm, level cruise 2450 rpm. Lean to 100 degrees ROP Maintain full throttle until decent. Descend at 500 fpm.

This scenario will average 8.7 gph almost every time. Proper leaning through out the flight will have an impact on the amount burned. I am sure that the guys running lean of peak are doing better.
 
Depends, but a 320 is plenty engine

trib said:
Looks like there are a number of O320 engines out there at very reasonable prices when compare to an O360. Could anyone give me an estimate on what the performance figures are for comparison purposes? :confused: Assume a 6A with fixed pitch prop. I might have to go for the O320 with prices being the way they are and availability of decent used mid-time engines.
Oh my, my pet peeve topic, a O320 fixed prop RV6(A) build with in spec weights will fly Wonderfully! :D Don't get caught up in the mine is bigger than yours. My O320 RV-4 ran circuls around some 180HP RV's, and I have race results to prove it.

Just go to vans web site and look at the specs, for RV6A. They have performance for solo and gross. You are looking at about going only 8 mph faster and 350 fpm more climb. Keep in mind with a 160 hp you are doing near 200 mph and climbing near 2000 fpm! That is with the 160 HP. Forget all the analysis about fuel burn, better for x-country or what ever, its all about MONEY. Ok A RV6A with 150 or 160 HP is faster than 99% of the certified general aviation single engine planes. I made up the 99%, but if you look a RV6A even with 160 HP is crusing near 190 mph or 165 kts. There are several SE retracts that don't do that!


Price wise, sure a used 320 is going to be cheaper than a 360 on average, apples to apples. I assume you are on a budget, aren't we all. :D If buying new it is hard to pass on the 360 since it is almost the same price as a 320. Buying new has almost become the preferred choice.

The salvage yards want WAY too much for used engines. Often they will say it is usable MID-TIME. Unless it's got serious pedigree (Log books and warranty) I would alway be suspicious that its usable as is without rebuild. You DON'T want to fly behind an unknown engine. It could bite you on the today do your first flight or a few years from now with you wife. It is not worth it. If you are going to spend money on your plane, besides the kit cost, get a good engine and go with VFR, day panel and no paint for a while. You can always add a panel or paint. Don't go cheap on the engine. That's my advice. Now cheap does not mean only new, just be warrned.

The thing we have over the salvage guys is we homebuilders have the ability to use many different engine model suffixes. As you probably know a certified airplane MUST have that exact engine, no substitutes. The "Clone" engines we buy are experimental, also not usable by the certified crowd. Clones are a deal. You may consider buying a ECI engine kit and building it yourself with some help. That can save some money and you will learn how the engine is built.

Just remember any used engine you buy, unless you know its condition and even better seen run and checked (compression, oil use per hour and analysis), I consider a core. The core value, top dollar retail is about $5,000. To overhaul is about $10,000 and UP. So for a few thousand more you can have a new clone. Don't buy on impulse and don't buy your engine too soon.

If you are willing not to have the BEST and GREATEST you can look for a 150HP 320, a 320's with conical mounts (usually 150 HP) or a 320-H2AD. You can save a lot.

Just keep in mind that used MID-TIME engine at bargain price is an an illusive animal. A dusty, rusty, spider web engine sitting on an old tire in the corner of a hanger, with no log books sold as MID-TIME, stay a way. Your best scenario is buying from another RV'er who is upgrading their 320 for a 360. Many times you can get prop, baffles, exhaust, oil cooler and so on with the deal saving a lot of money. Of course these deals do not grow on trees.

To answer your question about used engine availability, depends on your ability to hunt them down. Also check out companies that do engine upgrades on Cessna's or Grumman's, I know there are 160 to 180 HP upgrade STC's out there. Find out where they are done. No doubt owners sell their old engines since they can't trade them in. You got to get creative and LOOK for the deals. They will not fall into your lap. It takes time, but you may get lucky.

All these engines 150HP thru 180HP will propel a RV through the sky like (clich? warning) "A home sick angle". Conical mounts are not as good as dynafocal from a vibration standpoint, but if using a wood prop its not a big deal. Even with a metal prop its not that bad, as long as the engine/prop are reasonably balanced. I had a Hartzell extended hub c/s prop on my O320 RV-4 with conical mounts. It was fine after I had my prop properlly balanced and when I discoverd and used "Lord" vibration isolator mounts.

The H2AD has a well known history, but its well known and understood. You can research the H2AD on the web, but they are going to be a better deal. Just don't pay too much for them. The other issue a H2AD has on a RV, is some small mods are needed to install it. Van makes the special engine mount for the H2AD. Also years down the road, you want to upgrade or have more money, you can swap the engine out. Good luck. ITS JUST MONEY YOU CAN'T TAKE IT WITH YOU.
 
Last edited:
gmcjetpilot said:
My O320 RV-4 ran circuls around some 180HP RV's, and I have race results to prove it.

George:

While I agree that the differences between the two engines are minor, statements like this are very misleading. Your race results mean that you are smarter or worked harder reducing drag, choosing a prop, got lucky with altitude choices, and/or you flew better. The effort you put in was worth something more than 8mph but it does not mean the 160 is 'better'.

Got a 160 in your new -7? Or a nitrous breathing, ported, ram air bypass, 4-1 exhaust 200+hp 360? :)

All of these 'what should I do questions' should be prefaced with the builder's financial resources and AC mission. Day VFR low budget = FP/0320. Likes VX climbs, likes going fast, 30K engine/prop budget = CS/0360.
 
The times are changing....

gmcjetpilot said:
To answer your question about used engine availability, depends on your ability to hunt them down. Also check out companies that do engine upgrades on Cessna's or Grumman's, I know there are 160 to 180 HP upgrade STC's out there. Find out where they are done. No doubt owners sell their old engines since they can't trade them in. You got to get creative and LOOK for the deals. They will not fall into your lap. It takes time, but you may get lucky.

George..... this used to be the case, and I have a run-out O-320-E2G taken out of a Cheetah that was converted to a 180HP to prove the case.... :) ... many moons ago, in the last century, the core was $3000.

Core prices have doubled (I think) and at the same time Lycoming prices have gone from the $12K range to almost $30K (non-Vans prices that everyone else has to pay)

I think at this point, the conversion for older aircraft from 150 HP to 160 HP with a new prop. is easier than a 180 HP upgrade, if a new, full-price Lycoming engine is involved.

At this point, I'm wondering if the O-320-E2G is worth more as a certified core, and selling it and then buying an ECI kit would be cheaper overall than overhauling it. It's been well stored, filled with oil, wrapped in plastic and in a dry region of the country. Comments would be welcome on this....

gil in Tucson
 
I've got/had one of each.....

Well, let's see. Lot's of debate on both sides of the isle, mostly from people flying one or the other. Me, I have 2 RV6's. Mind you both were flying as follows:

IO-360 with FP sens prop RV6.
O-320 with FP sens prop RV6.

Both are light and clean planes. Both flew well. I totally agree the 320 is fine on the RV's, and especially good with a CS prop.

Now....the rest of the story. My 1st RV6 was the one with the 360 on it. The 2nd one I decided to build a cheap & light day/night VFR -6 per Van's specs. I put a new -320 on it and it ran like a top, to be honest it was the smoothest running lyco I've ever flown behind.

That being said, the airplane now has a 360 & hartzell C/S on the front of it. Why?!?!?, Well, compared to my 360 powered plane it just wasn't nearly as much fun and felt a little less responsive, etc... Sure I liked it, but I liked the 360 more. So, I endeavored to do a quick engine change, sold the firewall fwd and here I am 2 years later just finishing that "QEC (quick engine change) up". I just fired up the 360 on her last weekend and finally the only thing I have left is the cowl and I'll be flying again!

Anyway, I just wanted to give you a perspective of someone who's had both, flying at the SAME time in the SAME model plane with the SAME type of prop (and the 2 planes weighed in within 40lbs of each other). If I hadn't been flying behind the 360 for some years, then the 320 would have been a blast. I'm also pretty sure a CS prop on a 320 would make it a real joy to fly. Me, I like the 360's and the -7 we're building now will have one on it's nose but that's not to say the 320 is a bad choice - in fact it's a fine choice on the RV's.....if you build 'em light. I know there are the religious "there is no substitue" for HP/Cubic inches converts out there, but having flown a LOT of RV's, I can say that anything beyond the parallel valve 360's is enterring the point of diminishing returns. The angle valve engined RV's (I'm probably going to get shot for saying this) along with the "super RV's" end up being a bit piggy and overall less fun to fly - but remember, that's just my opinion so take it for what it's worth.

Cheers,
Stein.

PS, Currently sitting in my hangar is a customers RV4 with a 360 & BA Hartzell on the front that I've been "wringing out" for him after we did a complete rebuild on the plane and installed a new Glass panel. WHAT A BLAST of a plane. It's a veritable "mini rocket" :)
 
I would have to agree with Scott. I also have an 0-320 RV6 with Sensenich FP which is a very good performer and the difference between the like airplane powered by 0-360 is very minimal. With the two RV6's in formation the difference is noticeable but it is noticeable only when in formation or actually in a race situation. The 180 hp rate of climb is better but, again, the 160hp is no slouch either. No factory built planes can compete with either of them. If you get a good buy on either engine...take it and you will have a good ship. Presently, I am taking off the Senenich FP for a Hartzell which should narrow this small difference even more. I have not yet decided if this retrofit is going to be worth the time and trouble considering I was pleased with the performance before starting this modification but I already spent the $$$ and have some of the mods done. Time will tell.

Dick DeCramer
N500DD
Northfield, MN
 
Thanks Dude

chuck said:
George:

While I agree that the differences between the two engines are minor, statements like this are very misleading. Your race results mean that you are smarter or worked harder reducing drag, choosing a prop, got lucky with altitude choices, and/or you flew better. The effort you put in was worth something more than 8mph but it does not mean the 160 is 'better'.
Oh thanks, I was not saying that, thanks for the clarification. Sure more HP is better usually better. :D

I could have said you can gain speed with drag reduction, good fit finish and keeping it light to gain performance with out HP. The beauty is its the gift that keeps giving and cost nothing extra, at least in fuel. However there is no substitute for HP in climb, takeoff and ceiling. Thanks

Now in general regarding weight (chuck this is not necessarily directed at you), please I'm not asking anyone to debate the effect of weight on speed. Weight does not cost much speed, but keeping light does affect the handling and climb to a great degree. From Vans RV6A data (160HP)

.......................Wt Solo.......Wt. Gross
Top Speed.........202................201 mph
Cruise Speed......191................190 mph
Takeoff dist........300................535 mph
Landing dist........300................500 mph
Climb...............1,900.............1,500 fpm
Ceiling............21,500...........17,400 ft

Top and cruise speed not affected much by weight (1 mph) but takeoff, landing dist, rate of climb and ceiling all affected. However there is something really special about a super light RV, it just flies nicer, IMHO. However for being the fastest boy with a toy on the field, there ain't no replacement for displacement. However some folks think JUST adding HP will make you go faster. Sure, but if you don't pay attention to drag reduction, fit finish you may find your 180HP being passed buy a 160 HP. For example per Vans specs 180 hp gives you a spec speed advantage of 8 mph. So 20 HP gives you 8 mph more. Well a James aircraft cowl/plenum might get you those 8 mph alone, but on 160 HP.
 
Last edited:
Displacement costs $$. 320 is perfectly good, but a 360 is more perfectly good by about 20-30 hp.

You have the money, buy more hp. Buy a cs prop. Buy fuel injection. Simple as that.

If you look in the right places and take you time, you might find some bargains. And if I'm going to spend $12,000, it's sure not going to be for a 320.

2 cents
reasonably happily pulled along behind a $3000 O-320-E2A and CS prop.
 
Some Unsolicited Thoughts on Engine Selection

Guys,

I've been following this thread with interest, and I can't resist offering my 2 cents.

I'm building an RV-6, and the selection of an engine has become an interesting challenge for me precisely because there seems to be a complete absence of rational criteria for decision-making. People often say things like, "yur gonna put a 360 in it, right?" The question is spoken with the implication that I would be deficient in testosterone if I didn't put the largest permissible engine in my RV.

I offer these thoughts for the purpose of inviting argument, so here goes...

Imagine that I build two otherwise identical RV-6's. One has an O-320 (160 HP). The other has an O-360 (180 HP). Same prop. Same carb. Same toys. Let's imagine that they're both operating at gross weight. Which one is "best"? Well, the relative performance numbers are right there on the Van's website.

The 360-powered RV-6 would have 20 additional HP, and would have modest but measurably improved climb performance (290 ft/min). The additional power would get me to cruising altitude faster, but would only normally be of significant value during aerobatics or when flying from very short strips. Take-off distance would be reduced by 60 ft.

On the other side of the coin, let's consider cruise. Van's lists the 160 HP O-320 powered RV-6 as 8 mph shower both at top speed and at 75% power, 8000 ft. Sure, because 75% of 160HP is less power than 75% of 180 HP. That proves that if you want to go fast you need to maximize horsepower. However, if one were to select an equal power setting (i.e. same horsepower) then the O-320-powered RV-6 would have a slight advantage since it's carrying around about 20-25 lb less engine. This would equate to either a slightly greater payload or a very slightly increased cruising speed (1-2 mph) owing to reduced operating weight.

Airplanes are expensive, and I want to maximize my bang-for-buck ratio. RV's are efficient transportation by virtue of clean aerodynamic design, but even Van can't escape the diminishing returns caused by drag rise. Power Required increases with the cube of airspeed. Fuel flow and fuel cost are directly proportional to engine horsepower. Ergo, fuel cost increases with the cube of airspeed! Ouch! My conclusion for budget-conscious RV pilots: slow down. Even a lowly O-320 will push an RV-6 well up the front side of the power curve.

How does that bear upon engine selection? Well, it requires a clear statement of mission to optimize the engine for its intended usage. It's a personal decision, but to my mind airplanes spend most of their time in cruising flight with the throttle set at a particular value, and that value is increasingly determined by the amount of fuel we can afford to burn per hour. Time spent climbing or the reduction of take-off distance margins are rarely a crucial consideration, especially for the RV's, since their performance is already spectacular. It's a personal decision, but for me fuel burn, and the associated costs, are the more critical factor.

I spent a fun-filled day today looking over the Lycoming Type Certificate Data Sheets for the O-320 and O-360 engines. I was curious whether there were any difference in the efficiency of the two engines that would assist in selection. I discovered that the BSFC of each engine was related to the compression ratio. The 7:1 engines have a slightly higher (worse) BSFC than the 8.5:1 and higher engines, which in retrospect is no surprise since BSFC is probably a function of volumetric efficiency. I also noted that the higher compression engines require higher octane fuel for anti-detonation protection. Hmm, this would factor in the bang-for-buck equation, since we are all concerned about the cost and availability of avgas. This leads me to another factor in engine selection: trading efficiency versus fuel flexibility. The lower compression (and typically lower power) engine variants are more accommodating of mogas, premium mogas, etc.

Concluding, I think that the RV-6 performance is sufficient in take-off and climb, and I will probably opt to take a small benefit where it spends most of its time, in cruise. That speaks for an O-320 engine. Among the numerous O-320 variants, I will need to do some serious crystal ball gazing to anticipate which engine will burn the fuels that will exist in the future, with the understanding that lower compression means greater flexibility.

Furthermore, it occurs to me that maybe our dialogue is too slanted toward how much horsepower is "enough" horsepower. The more fundamental trade-off is between horsepower and payload, since the design gross weight is fixed. Bigger engines cost more in terms of weight (oh, and dollars).

Again, in the context of my two notional identical RV-6's, let's look at the trade-offs and see how they effect engine selection. Most -6's come out of the shop weighing around 1050 lb. plus or minus a bunch. Van's design maximum gross weight is 1600 lb. Of course, some people fly them heavier - in part because they shoehorn so much horsepower into them - but that was the gross weight designed into the structure. Consequently, the payload breaks down roughly as follows:

Empty: 1050 lb
Me and wife: 300 lb
Full fuel (38 gal): 250 lb
Baggage: 0 lb
Take-Off Wt: 1600 lb

It seems that we have a classic design for a light airplane; a design that allows a functional trade-off between range and payload. In relation to engine selection, and in light of the loading scenario above, would you trade payload for increased performance by installing a bigger engine? The weight difference between an O-320 and O-360 is on the order of 20 lb, and that's 20 lb that you can't carry in the cabin. I don't presume to have an answer, because it's a question of your intended mission. If I let testosterone speak, I'd opt for horsepower any day. The extreme example of that logic, in an RV-sized package, is the Extra 300. Incredible performance, but you can't carry anything.

Another way of looking at it: For roughly the same weight (dollars aside) I could have either an O-360 with a fixed-pitch prop or an O-320 with a constant speed prop. My bet is that the propulsive efficiency of the constant speed would more than make up for the lower horsepower.

Just thinkin' aloud. Opinions most welcome.

Rob Erdos
 
Another way of looking at it: For roughly the same weight (dollars aside) I could have either an O-360 with a fixed-pitch prop or an O-320 with a constant speed prop. My bet is that the propulsive efficiency of the constant speed would more than make up for the lower horsepower.

I don't think so. Tis your airplane. Do whatever you wish. But I have never heard of anyone replacing a 180 HP engine for an O-320 to get 20 pounds of useful payload.

Go with a MT prop or equivalent to save weight over a Hartzell.

180 HP or better (RV-7/7/8): You won't regret it.
 
Guys,

I've been following this thread with interest, and I can't resist offering my 2 cents.

I'm building an RV-6, and the selection of an engine has become an interesting challenge for me precisely because there seems to be a complete absence of rational criteria for decision-making. People often say things like, "yur gonna put a 360 in it, right?" The question is spoken with the implication that I would be deficient in testosterone if I didn't put the largest permissible engine in my RV.

I offer these thoughts for the purpose of inviting argument, so here goes...
<snip>
Rob Erdos

Very well-reasoned post, Ron.

I have eleven enjoyable years on my O-320, fixed-pitch RV-6 and have never wished it had an O-360. The only thing I might change is to pop for a CS prop, but the lack thereof has never been a limitation on where I wanted to fly. The maintenance on my FP prop has been........nothing. In my opinion the highest priority should be on achieving a light and clean airframe.

I may see the resale price of my plane deflated at some point because of the perception that the O-320 is inferior to the larger engine, but it won't be due to a loss of utility.
 
Last edited:
Ditto, everything that Sam said...

Except that mine has been flying for over 17 1/2 years.
I'm still VERY happy with it.
 
Excellent points Rob.

Very early on in my build, I wrote a mission statement, with a long list of specific requirements. The gist of the mission statement was to build a day/night VFR machine with three goals (in this order): 1) reliability, 2) simplicity, and 3) value.

A fourth, implied factor is assumed simply by choosing the Van's design: performance. In other words, compared to anything else that I can fly or own in this cost bracket, the RV will have not just acceptable performance, but remarkable performance - regardless of engine & propeller choices.

My own personal decision trees have led me towards a fuel injected 180hp f/p (preferably with hollow crank for future upgrades path). Always subject to change of course.
 
2 cents

Me: 0-320, fp metal prop, 150 hp w/ 7.5 to 1 comp ratio. Burns weed killer, segrams VO, or 85 oct car gas:p so costs are as low as you can get. But, I am also the guy in the motorhome going down the freeway 55-60 mph with some people telling me I'm # 1:D
 
Good thoughts and comments.

Coming from a guy who started with a 135 hp up front, I was very happy with that engine but when I trashed it and to select a new one I did a lot of head scratching.

For $500 and 20 pounds more (320 vs. 360), I elected to go with the 360. As for what fuel will it burn, premium auto fuel will work just fine.

What I elected to do was put another Catto FP wood composite prop up front, so I'm still lighter than an O-320 with a metal FP prop.

Call it the best of all worlds and for 500 bucks (ECi engine kit that I assembled with the help of an A&P friend), I feel it was the right choice for me. As my siggy states, “Build the plane you want to build, not the plane others want you to build.”
 
First, Rob, a correction. The fuel burn per hour goes up with the increased HP, but because the speed is going up also, you spend less time on the trip so that the fuel burn per distance only goes up with the square of the speed, not the cube.
I would also take exception with your characterizing the CS prop as having higher propulsive efficiency. They dont; they only allow you to turn up more rpm for higher static and climb power. In cruise a well designed FP will be more efficient.
Since Jim Smith put the wingtip extensions on his RV-6, he's seeing from 1.5%more speed at 7000' dalt to 4.9% more speed at 12,000' dalt. That's equivalent to a power increase of 4.4% (160 to 167) at 7000' to 15.4% (160 to 184.7) at 12,000'. Some don't like the looks of them, but they surely do make the plane takeoff faster, climb faster, cruise faster, and land slower. In cruise above 8000' dalt, the nose is much lower, giving a better view ahead. To me, that gives more benefits than more power!
 
a lesser RV

OK I can't keep up with most of you guys it seems but........

My 150 HP, wood prop -9A is an absolutely delightful airplane!

If you got the $$$ (I don't:D) go for the big engine & CS prop.

But don't let your finances delay getting your RV in the air. These are great airplanes!

The money I didn't spend is going to buy alot of fuel (86 oct car gas BTW).

Dave
-9A flying
 
My own personal decision trees have led me towards a fuel injected 180hp f/p (preferably with hollow crank for future upgrades path). Always subject to change of course.
My personal decisions led me towards a fuel injected 185 hp f/p (with a hollow crank for future upgrades) that weighs only 8 lbs more than the IO-320 (I know this because I weighed every component of my engine and compared it to the published weight information of the IO-320).

The performance of those 185 horses with only 8 lbs of additional weight is truly incredible. I wouldn't trade the extra 25 horses for anything. Especially when I am still cruising at 145-150 mph true airspeed while burning 6.5 to 7.0 gph at 65%. I can still push the airplane even faster if I want to at the expense of more fuel. It is there if I need it. I am also sure I will be able to get even better fuel economy the first time I am able to take a cross country trip that will allow me to climb high and lean out even more aggressively than I already am.

I have discovered that there is not a linear relationship between the weight of an engine and the amount of HP produced. I can have my HP and carry less weight too! For anyone interested in learning what I found out: Click Here!

I LOVE THIS ENGINE!

Live Long and Prosper!
 
I would also take exception with your characterizing the CS prop as having higher propulsive efficiency. They dont; they only allow you to turn up more rpm for higher static and climb power. In cruise a well designed FP will be more efficient.

A C/S also allows the pilot to pull back the RPM's in cruise flight, to lessen the noise. That's something I always do................and I wouldn't be too happy, without that capibility. The C/S is also excellent for braking ability, which opens up a lot more options coming downhill or in the pattern. Would "I" buy an RV6 without a C/S, or that extra 20 HP..................No!

L.Adamson --- RV6A 036/Hartzell CS
 
The first RV I ever got to fly from the left seat was a 150hp carbureted O-320, fixed pitch wooden prop RV-6. Takeoff, climb, and cruise were fantastic compared to my Cherokee. It was great fun.

The second RV I ever got to fly from the left seat was a -7A with a hotrodded angle valve IO-360 and Hartzell blended airfoil constant speed prop. It was simply mindblowing in short takeoff roll, climb and cruise. A rocketship that hit 180kts in level cruise effortlessly with two aboard. Sucked down a fair amount of fuel pretty quickly too.

The third RV I got to fly as PIC and log a significant amount of time in was a 160hp carbureted, fixed pitch wood prop RV-4. Excellent performance, especially since this is the first RV I soloed. Distinctively stronger performer in takeoff and climb than the aforementioned 150hp RV-6. The extra 10hp, plus a little less weight made a difference.

The 3rd RV I get to fly is the -8 in my avatar. It's got a 192hp ECI Titan IO-360 and Hartzell blended airfoil CS prop. It too is mindblowingly fast and climbs like a rocketship. It's not quite as powerful as that -7A that I got to fly a couple years ago, but that one probably had north of 200hp onboard.

On the way to Oshkosh, JetJ01 in his RV-4 (with carbureted O-360 and the same Hartzell blended airfoil prop as we've got on the -8) was flying right next to me (solo in the -8), with a pax in his back seat (who took the photo in my avatar), and I pretty much maxxed everything out on the -8 and JJ stayed right up alongside me, then he waved bye-bye and they simply walked off and left me behind. So if you really want to go fast, there's just no substitute for extra cubic inches.
 
Consider this. Both are 160hp engines. io-320 and io-360L2A. I maybe off 25rpms but on the 160hp on the io320 @2675rpms and 160HP on the io360 2400rpms. This version IO360 provides more HP at a lower RPM so its quiter than the IO320. The engine works less and maybe longer wear on the IO 360. If you live at a higher altitude you might consider IO360. Now Iam building a 9A and considered the IO 360 until I went hunting for a used 360. When they wanted $2K less (on a IO360L2A & 800hr engine) than a brand new IO320 from Vans it was a no brainer. So heres where I learned about the IO360 L2A. Cessna I believe 1996 came out with the IO360 but this version was the IO360 derated to 160hp with limiter plate on fuel/air mixture. So when the SP Skyhawk came out the limiter plate was removed and now you have 180HP. This way cessna's assembly line didn't need different engines for different HPs. I really loved the rented 160 HP Hawk flying around the Florida keys and west of Key West it was so quite. I try to treat myself to flying when Iam on vacation that I had to use a jet to get there. I rent a Hawk and a Instructor and tell the instructor I can fly the plane but you tell me where I can fly or not and have him work the com radio. This way I get the thrill of flying and support aviation and or instructor community. Enjoy,
Ron in Oregon
 
Here's my opinion - If economy and economics is the main consideration then go with the 320 (I did). If speed is the main consideration go with the 360 (or better yet, IO-390).

Everyone talks about going fast, but.....what's the hurry?
 
I've been asking myself the same question. Twenty horsepower isn't all that much and I'm thinking that with some mods the less expensive 320 should be able to run close to a 360 and still weigh less. That's what I'm thinking at this point anyhow.
 
An O-320... with a little work will keep up with the best of the O-360 RV's out there. I know because I have one. My flying Bud has a IO-360 200 HP in his RV7, we're neck and neck. :D

More important to this equation is a straight, true and clean airframe... AKA John Huft's RV8
 
Last edited:
Climb, Baby ... Climb!

Here's my opinion - If economy and economics is the main consideration then go with the 320 (I did). If speed is the main consideration go with the 360 (or better yet, IO-390).

Everyone talks about going fast, but.....what's the hurry?

Why do people always associate more HP with speed alone? With an efficiently-powered airplane, getting more speed with a little extra horsepower is almost always pretty hard to do - you're already on the steep part of the drag curve.

For me, HP is about climb - and you can get a lot for a little! Additional climb rate goes a long way toward making an airplane that is truly fun and free in three dimensions. If, of course, that is important to you....
 
Heck... all I need to do is pick a different prop off the shelf for the purpose of the flying I'm doing and it make a **** of a difference. :)
 
Why do people always associate more HP with speed alone? With an efficiently-powered airplane, getting more speed with a little extra horsepower is almost always pretty hard to do - you're already on the steep part of the drag curve.

For me, HP is about climb - and you can get a lot for a little! Additional climb rate goes a long way toward making an airplane that is truly fun and free in three dimensions. If, of course, that is important to you....

Paul, Paul, Paul, not all of us want to fly vertically! :)What's the R.O.C. for the shuttle? How much fuel and $$ does it take to make that happen?

I am with you though, HP is about more than just horizontal speed. Excess thrust is never a bad thing. I am just not sure that the 20 extra ponies is the answer. If overall performance is the driving factor, wouldn't an IO-390 be the answer?
 
it's all about the vertical...

Aerobatics in an RV is just plain right... at least for the smooth maneuvers based on rolls and loops. As I have expanded my knowledge and skills I find that being upside down, at least briefly, is so natural that I hardly even realize that I am doing it... gotta watch that though... When set up for solo fun the beast climbs out at an honest 3,000+ fpm up to legal altitude to begin tossing about :)

There are lots of options in choosing the engine and prop... in the end they are all have their points.

Love my engine, love my prop!

zoom zoom
 
There are lots of options in choosing the engine and prop... in the end they are all have their points.

Love my engine, love my prop! zoom zoom

Stephan,

You definitely have the magical :D combination of an IO-390 and the Whirlwind prop! And my point exactly, if you can afford it, and overall performance is a primary consideration. Go big or go home! Hey, my o-320 will do 2000 FPM up to pattern altitude a solo weight!
 
A C/S also allows the pilot to pull back the RPM's in cruise flight, to lessen the noise. That's something I always do................and I wouldn't be too happy, without that capibility. The C/S is also excellent for braking ability, which opens up a lot more options coming downhill or in the pattern. Would "I" buy an RV6 without a C/S, or that extra 20 HP..................No!

L.Adamson --- RV6A 036/Hartzell CS

True, L., and that's one of the trade-offs that should be considered when making a prop decision. Sometimes, a decision tree comes down to setting up a ledger with all of the pros and cons listed, and maybe a weighting function for each, and other times it's just a gut feeling and a "That prop is cool". I chose a three-blade for my plane because I like the sexy, to me, looks of the three blade, even though a boss-look four blade would give me better take-off and climb with the same cruise as a two- or three-blade. If we all made the same logical decisions, eveything would be the same! As the French are wont to say, "Vive la difference!"
 
engine ADs

something else I just thought of:

I bought a used engine (o-320E2A). It came very well documented with logs, yellow tags/receipts for the overhaul and all the AD compliance info.

When the FSDO came to inspect my plane, I was surprised at the attention given to the engine documents. They were VERY interested in proof that all ADs were complied with.

Before the inspection, i did an AD search just to make sure all was well.

IIRC the o-360 engines seemed to have more ADs - can someone verify if this is true? I could be wrong you know:D

Anyway, my advice, if you buy a used engine, is to make sure its up to snuff on ADs.

Dave
-9A flying
 
Got a neighbor with an IO360 Mustang II with a c/s prop. On long flights he can burn in the low 7s and still have a good cruise speed by simply throttling back. But he has huge VERSATILITY..You don't feel differences empty or loaded (he has extra tankage and has close to 60 gallons). When he wants to enter a race, (he has) and can be competitive in either time to climb, efficiency or speed. If you have a load of ice or are climbing over mountains, 20 more hp would be welcome.
I live on an airpark and have gotten to fly many configs of Vans aircraft. More HP is very desirable. Almost all fighters increase HP throughout series development, they never go backwards.
 
Last edited:
Resale?

I'd like to make the point that resale value is important also, so I am very happy to have my -6a outfitted with IO-360/CS Hartzell which I believe will attract more prospective buyers. Seems that combo is the most popular, and most of us sell our RV's at some point in order to build another etc.

In the meantime, one has to just LUV the performance of that thang...

I have no problem sinking the bux into the engine/prop combo because I will probably get it back upon sale. Of course, one must be able to afford in first place...

In about 10 years, I figure running LOP will make up the cost diff...Not really...

YMMV
 
These threads always crack me up. What we RV types forget is that the O-320 was designed to lift four people and we question if it is enough engine for a light and small RV that will only haul two people.

Go figure.

Look at the numbers Van?s posts and consider the weight penalty you pay for the larger engine and see if you can live that that extra 12 pounds. If you are buying new, the cost difference of the O-320 vs the O-360 isn?t really a factor. (About $500 for an ECi kit. Used prices are all over the place.)